ERIC review: exploring the meaning of "nontraditional" at the community college.

This review of literature raises the issue of whether the term nontraditional is too broad to be helpful in identifying specific student needs at a community college because of the number of students who fit the definition. The review presents research and suggestions using these definitions, highlighting the characteristics of the community college student population and programs developed within the community college to address them. Additionally, it reflects on the limitations of using a single term to encompass such a diverse group of students and explores alternative ways to research unique populations.

**********

Community colleges are well known for serving diverse populations. Pascarella and Terenzini (1998) refer to "the richly diverse but nontraditional students who attend them" and describe community colleges as consisting of "disproportionate numbers of non-resident, part-time, older, non-white, and working class students"(p. 155). Given the degree of diversity within the community college student population, institutions must have a clear understanding of the challenges that their students face as well as ways to address these issues through programs and policies. Research on nontraditional students helps to illuminate issues and programs relevant to the diverse community college student population. However, a closer look at this research on nontraditional students in community colleges leads to two interesting conclusions: (1) at least three distinct definitions have been used by researchers and policymakers to identify the nontraditional community college student population, and (2) cumulatively, these definitions include the majority of students within the community college. This realization raises the issue of whether the term nontraditional is too broad to be helpful in identifying specific student needs at a community college because of the large number of students fitting within the definitions of nontraditional.

In much of the literature, the term nontraditional refers to students who are age 25 or older, but it has also been defined using the background characteristics or risk factors of the students. This review will present research and suggestions that have been generated using all three definitions, highlighting the characteristics of the community college student population and programs that have developed within community colleges to address them. In addition, this review will reflect on the limitations of using a single term to encompass such a diverse group of students and will explore alternative ways to research unique populations within the community colleges.

The Community College Student Population

Community colleges enroll almost one half of all undergraduates in the United States each fall. Not surprisingly, students attend community colleges to pursue a variety of educational objectives, including academic transfer, vocational-technical education, remedial and continuing education, and community service. Approximately one half of all African-American, Native-American, and Hispanic college students are enrolled at a community college. The student population consists primarily of commuter students, and a large percentage of students attend part time. Almost one half (46%) of first-time entrants into community colleges enroll part-time, compared to 11% of first-time students attending public four-year institutions. Thirty-five percent of first-time entrants in community colleges work full time compared to 11% in the public four-year institutions (NCES, 1998). The rise in the number of part-time students in community colleges can be attributed to many factors, including the increase in students who are employed, the increase in women attending college, and a decline in 18-year-old students (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). In fact, 46% of the community college student population is 25 or older, and the average student age in the community college is 29 (AACC, 2000). Thus, community colleges provide access to higher education to a broader range of students than would be found at most four-year institutions.

Defining the Nontraditional Student

The following sections present three definitions of nontraditional students that have been used by researchers in studying community college students, and describe some of the particular challenges that are faced by these subpopulations. It is critical in reading this section to be aware that many of the community college students cross boundaries--that is, they meet more than one definition of nontraditional.

The Traditional Definition: The Age Criterion

Most often, researchers have explored distinctive characteristics and identified programmatic needs of the nontraditional student population at community colleges by using age as the primary criterion. In fact, research on nontraditional students usually considers students who are age 25 or older (Metzner & Bean, 1987; Butler, 1998; Ely, 1997; Hazzard, 1993; Nora, Kraemer, & Itzen, 1997; O'Keefe, 1993; Sundberg, 1997).

Ely (1997) highlights specific needs of the students age 25 and older. Typically, these students must balance school with employment, family, and financial responsibilities, making successful completion of their educational objectives more difficult. They have little time for extracurricular activities and spend most of their time on campus in the classroom. Therefore, these nontraditional students need flexible schedules to improve their basic academic, study, decision-making, and stress management skills, and to receive instruction appropriate to their developmental level. In addition to practical concerns, such as improved parking, registration, financial aid, social networking and support, counseling, child care, and information services, adult students would benefit from specialized customer service and appreciate being treated like adults and feeling as if they belong at the college (Raisman, 2002). Ely also points out that social integration is very important, and since most of this socializing occurs in the context of the classroom, faculty play a crucial role in the process. In addition, active and collaborative learning approaches are highly valued.

In their study of persistence of nontraditional Hispanic students (age 25 or older), Nora, Kraemer, and Itzen (1997) provide evidence that peer relationships and satisfaction with informal and formal interactions with faculty positively influence student retention. They show that measures of social support and encouragement, peer relationships, and satisfaction with faculty and instruction all significantly affected these students' commitments to their institution and their intent to reenroll the following academic year.

Defining Nontraditional Using Student Background Characteristics

The term nontraditional has also been used to refer to a variety of student background characteristics including ethnicity and socioeconomic status. For example, in an examination of characteristics of nontraditional students in higher education, using the National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey of 1986, Richard Apling (1991) compares five groups of nontraditional students. In addition to a group classified by age (24 and older), this categorization also includes students who are independent of their parents' support, part-time students, students without high school diplomas, and students who are single parents. In her discussion of nontraditional students in community colleges, Rendon (1994, 2000) considers low income, first-generation, and employment status. This more inclusive characterization accounts for the competing demands of work, school, family, and culture that these nontraditional students often face (Rendon, 1994).

Defining Nontraditional through At-Risk Behaviors

A third approach focuses on factors that may increase students' risk of attrition (NCES, 1998). This approach focuses on behaviors that are amenable to change and allows for interventions at various stages in a student's educational life. The National Center for Education Statistics has identified seven such factors: (1) not enrolling within the same year as completion of high school, (2) attending part-time, (3) being financially independent of parents, (4) working full-time, (5) having dependents other than a spouse, (6) being a single parent, and (7) not having a high school diploma. Three fourths of students in two-year colleges have at least one factor. Table 1 compares risk factors for students enrolled in two-year and four-year public institutions.

This study found that 25.7% of students in public two-year institutions are considered traditional students, having no risk factors, compared to 69.6% of students in public four-year institutions. Conversely, nontraditional students in public two-year institutions are more likely to have two or more risk factors as compared to students in public four-year institutions. For example, these findings show that, in public two-year institutions, 22.3% of the student population can be considered minimally nontraditional with one risk factor and 23.9% of the student population can be considered highly nontraditional, having four or more factors. This can be compared to the student population in public four-year institutions in which 18.1% of students are minimally nontraditional with one risk factor and 4.6% of students are highly nontraditional, having four or more factors (NCES, 1998). Using these risk factors as criteria for defining the nontraditional student population, the majority of students enrolled in community colleges are considered nontraditional to some degree.

Tyler (1993) offers insights for faculty on how to identify at-risk, nontraditional students, using an index card method in which students respond to four questions which signal red flags for being a potential at risk student. These indicators include being out of school for more than five years, having three or more social roles, returning to school because of a layoff rather than intellectual curiosity, and speaking English as a second language. Tyler suggests that cooperative learning may maximize learning for this population because of the increased opportunities for students to participate in small groups, to develop positive self-esteem and social skills, and to have more personal interaction with faculty and peers. Tyler concludes that cooperative learning facilitates classroom environments that increase potential for student satisfaction and retention.

Institutional Programs Designed to Assist Nontraditional Students

Research on nontraditional students also offers academic and cocurricular approaches to addressing the needs of different types of nontraditional students. Following are examples of programs that were developed for this population. While some of these programs can be beneficial for a wide range of nontraditional students, others do not meet the specific needs of some nontraditional students facing particular personal or logistical challenges.

Promoting Nontraditional Student Retention

Recognizing the high attrition rates of students in community colleges, particularly among the nontraditional student population, Rendon (1994, 1995, 2000) provides suggestions for institutions to increase nontraditional student retention. Because most students drop out during the first semester, Rendon (1995) argues that institutions should focus on two critical phases that affect student retention: making the transition to college and making academic and social connections in college. Nontraditional students, defined more broadly by Rendon to include first-generation, low-socioeconomic status, and minority students, are more likely to be unfamiliar with the college environment and to be dealing with issues such as breaking away from family traditions, being perceived as different, and feeling as though they are living between two worlds. The difficulties associated with these barriers can be amplified when certain institutional barriers exist, such as a Eurocentric curriculum, lack of faculty involvement, pedagogy that promotes passive learning or competition, or cultural insensitivity. In order to address these personal and institutional barriers, Rendon (1995) proposes four key commitments needed for restructuring community colleges: keeping the culturally diverse learner at the center of restructuring, creating conditions for optimal learning, diversifying faculty and staff, and designating transfer as a high institutional priority.

Rendon (1994) also points out that nontraditional students will not become involved on their own. Therefore, community colleges should create validating academic and social environments in and out of the classroom similar to the learning communities that Tinto (1999) advocates. These validating communities can be developed in the classroom by replacing competitive environments with personalized attention, by promoting encouragement and positive reinforcement from faculty, by promoting active learning, by validating students' ability to learn and accept challenge, and by fostering a positive and culturally sensitive classroom climate. Out of the classroom, these validating communities can be created by establishing a hospitable, positive campus climate and by building an institutional climate that connects the cognitive and social dimensions of the college.

Developing Marketing Strategies

Community colleges should analyze and segment their approaches to marketing to specific populations. In her study of marketing strategies related to nontraditional students at Carl Sandburg Community College in Illinois, Sundberg (1997) reviews environmental influences and internal conditions that the institution utilized to market its college to neighboring communities. She suggests a strategy of targeting the specific market segment of adult, nontraditional students rather than relying on the general promotional strategy that was previously employed. This necessitates a review of the college's image in the community and an assessment of how the institution is addressing students' needs. Policy changes, such as extending the hours of the bookstore, counseling services, financial aid, registration, and business offices, provide better access for nontraditional students. Sundberg also states that the community college can create an interest in degree programs and certificate programs by expanding night course offerings and designing predeveloped schedules that are less intimidating and can be completed in two-year time frames. After implementing program changes that specifically consider nontraditional students, Sundberg argues that the college should actively advertise its programs for nontraditional students in the catalog and local newspapers.

Sundberg's suggestions for improving Carl Sandburg Community College's marketing efforts may also offer insights for other community colleges to follow. The target market--which she specifies as nontraditional students between 25 years of age and 46 years of age--is clearly different from Rendon's group of first generation, low-SES students. Thus, the effectiveness of this strategy would vary, depending on which subgroup of nontraditional students attended the college.

The Role of Communications Courses

As suggested by Ely (1997), Tyler (1993), and Rendon (1994, 1995), the curriculum and classroom structure provide key avenues to promoting the success of nontraditional students. O'Keefe (1993) adds to this perspective by showing the unique role that communications courses play in educating nontraditional students in community colleges. In addition to serving as an introductory course for the nontraditional student, communications courses have a critical role because of the importance of oral communication skills for academic success in virtually all classroom and workplace settings.

In her comparison study of 28 traditional and 40 nontraditional students (defined as 24 years of age or older), O'Keefe reports that the skills of students who are returning to school after several years away are different from those of recent high school graduates, particularly in their finding more difficulty in studying, completing assignments, and taking tests. But, nontraditional students' learning capacity has often seemed to expand because of life experience. Nontraditional students report that counseling services have been most helpful and yet need the most improvement. O'Keefe also finds gender differences in assessment of the communications course, regardless of age. Females found that this communication course most helped them by allowing them to gain communication skills while males noted that this communication course most helped them by fulfilling the degree requirement. O'Keefe concludes that introductory communication courses should focus on pedagogy that builds practical competence and confidence rather than focusing on theories of communication and lecture-style approaches to teaching.

Using age as a criterion to define the nontraditional student population, O' Keefe highlights differences between traditional and nontraditional students within the communications course. But, the additional findings that show gender differences regardless of age point out that using age as the sole factor to distinguish between groups may not provide a complete picture of differences among students.

Transition Courses for Nontraditional Students

Koehler and Burke (1996) highlight the curricular aspects of a successful introductory course that introduces nontraditional students to the college experience before they are fully matriculated in the college credit system. The Transition Class is offered to nontraditional, first-generation college students as an alternative model to the traditional sequence of developmental reading, English, and math courses. This 12-week, non-graded, free course provides a holistic, integrated curriculum and class structure that focuses on active learning methodologies and academic, emotional, and social skill building needed to succeed in the classroom and workplace. These skills include teamwork, positive attitude development, self-assessment and personal reflection, career exploration, goal setting, and problem solving. With the small class size, the students become a community of learners who practice interpersonal skills and basic competencies such as reading critically, writing and speaking clearly, and computation as well as personal management, group effectiveness, and influence.

Koehler and Burke point out that three principles govern methodologies used in the Transition Class; expecting students to be responsible for their own learning, establishing high expectations for students, and creating a learning environment based on community. Koehler and Burke conclude that as a result of participation in this course, students benefit from the experience in a low-risk, supportive environment where they learn the rules of the game before they compete in the college classroom.

Koehler and Burke provide strong evidence for the benefits of the Transition Class and offer some detailed descriptions of how this program can serve as a model for other institutions. They conclude that the Transition Class, which is for "underprepared, nontraditional, first-generation college attenders" (p. 4), is "an effective way to level the playing field for first-generation college attenders" (p. 12). Clearly, such an intensive program might not fit with the multiple demands and limited time availability of students who work full-time or have family responsibilities, whether they are recent high school graduates or adults.

Matching the Program to the Student Characteristics

Several authors have examined the effectiveness of campus programs for nontraditional students by comparing the specific characteristics and needs of the students with the services offered. Following are two useful examples of thoughtful evaluations.

Career Programs for Adult Students

Hazzard (1993) describes some programs that are designed to address the needs of adult, nontraditional students. These programs include professional retraining courses that enable professionals to learn about the latest advances in their field, midcareer programs for executives that allow midlevel managers to gain technical skills, education in industry programs that provide off-the-job education under company sponsorship, and weekend college programs designed for students who are also employed full time so they can attend courses on the weekend. Hazzard also points out that orientation programs that are supported by faculty, staff, and administrators, designed to introduce nontraditional students to the community college and its programs, may promote success among this population.

Hazzard offers a useful approach to research on nontraditional students by first specifying the characteristics of adult, nontraditional students, particularly as related to the literature, and then highlighting programs that are designed for adult, nontraditional students using the designated characterization. This approach allows for the matching of student characteristics with the programs under consideration.

Transition Counseling for Community College Students

Haggan (2000) suggests that community college counseling plays a critical role in helping adult returning students negotiate the fundamental dilemmas that these students face. Haggan outlines counseling issues such as assessment (including developmental, intellectual, emotional, physical and biological, relational, cultural, spiritual, and vocational) and student skill development (including assertiveness, conflict resolution, crisis intervention, grief response, and evaluation and termination). Haggan also provides a detailed description of general characteristics and challenges that community college students face. These characteristics and challenges draw attention to the notion that many community college students may struggle with barriers beyond those of a typical college student.

Haggan provides an exemplary approach to studying community college students, highlighting the fact that community colleges are increasingly serving an older population and that many students are nontraditional, given their characteristics and personal challenges. In this work, Haggan offers a detailed description of student characteristics and challenges that counselors can use to provide effective services for students. In addition, the assessment and student skill development tools recognize multiple dimensions of student development and can be applied to any student. Thus, Haggan points out that community college counselors should be cognizant of the diverse population that they serve and then provide them with broad range of tools that they can use to help students negotiate their complex circumstances.

The Critique

Research on nontraditional students in the community colleges using age, background characteristics, or risk factors offers insights into this population. This is evidenced by the valuable conceptualizations of community college students and programs provided in the literature included in this review. But, consideration of this research as collectively addressing a single subculture--the nontraditional student--within the community college has its drawbacks. Namely, this research is not based on a constant conceptualization of who comprises the nontraditional student population. In fact, a lack of a consistent definition of nontraditional students in the literature has made it difficult to identify these students (Hughes, 1983). This issue is present within research at both two-year and four-year institutions. In research at four-year institutions, this population is juxtaposed against the image of the traditional student who is aged 18 to 22, full time, residential, and attends college directly after the completion of high school. But, in community colleges, even restricting the term nontraditional to refer only to students who are aged 25 or over means that almost one half of the community college student population is comprised of nontraditional students.

The Limitations of Age as the Sole Criterion

Research using age as a primary identifier for nontraditional students in the community college does offer insight into distinctive characteristics and programmatic needs of adult students. However, this definitional approach has its limitations. In particular, students who are identified as being 25 or older do not represent a homogeneous group with singular attendance patterns, reasons for attending college, resources, and challenges (Hughes, 1983). In addition, students who are under 25 may also share characteristics of students who are over 25. For example, Hamilton (1998) reports that traditional-age students (25 years old or less at the time of entry) who entered college within four years of receiving their GED required more developmental courses (85% requiring at least one course compared to 50.6% of the general student population), had lower GPAs (2.14 compared to 2.60), and had lower one-year persistence rates (43% compared to 62%). Thus, although they were the same age as their classmates, their different high school experiences led to different college experiences and outcomes.

Revisiting Use of the Term Nontraditional

The problem, then, is not found in the research or the methodology itself, but rather in the use of the label nontraditional. Research on specific groups of students within the community college is absolutely necessary, but using the single term nontraditional to refer to these varied populations of students makes it difficult to understand which students are being discussed and which of their many characteristics are being emphasized. And, in some cases, differences between traditional and nontraditional students can be attributed to factors beyond the defining criteria. For example, in a comparison of trait-like and situational communication apprehension of traditional and nontraditional (age 25 or older) students, Poppenga (1996) found that differences in both cases could also be attributed to factors other than age, such as number of credits earned.

Using an expanded definition of nontraditional to include background characteristics or risk factors means that a significant majority of community colleges students can be considered nontraditional. The ERIC search engine includes the following definition for nontraditional students: "Adults beyond traditional school age (beyond the midtwenties), ethnic minorities, women with dependent children, underprepared students, and other special groups who have historically been underrepresented in postsecondary education." Most students enrolled in community colleges meet at least one of these criteria. If we refer back to the definition of nontraditional students that originated in four-year institutions and include commuter status, all but a few community college students are nontraditional.

A closer look at the literature on nontraditional students highlights the fact that traditional students would benefit from many of the pedagogical approaches that were suggested, such as promoting active learning and collaboration. Expanding resources such as later bookstore and administrative office hours may also benefit the community college student population at large. There are 18-year-old students who attend college full time and work full time, characteristics that are more commonly attributed to nontraditional students. We can also locate 30-year-old students who attend college full time and do not work.

Rather than looking generally at nontraditional students, it is of greater value to examine specific subpopulations by focusing on characteristics that all members of a group share such as employment status, first-generation status, or minority status. Research on specific populations should clearly identify the population within its scope and focus on the unique qualities of this group. Since the majority of community college students share one or more of the characteristics that tend to be studied by researchers, a large number of students will benefit from the findings.

Conclusion

This review highlights the differences in the community college student population as well as institutional approaches to addressing the needs of nontraditional students. It also shows that students who have been classified based on age or at-risk status as nontraditional represent a complex and diverse population; even students who may be considered traditional in some cases have qualities that are typically considered nontraditional.

On a related note, some consideration should be given to whether the term nontraditional promotes negative stereotypes of the students it describes. While this term connotes an image of a student that wavers from the norm, the research shows that most community college students are nontraditional in some sense, and, therefore, are the norm. In many cases, research on nontraditional students should be more accurately labeled as research on adult students, reentry students, educationally disadvantaged students, first-generation students, or minority students.

Researchers, policy makers, and student affairs professionals may benefit from research that focuses on ways to better understand the community college student population far beyond the nontraditional paradigm. While use of the term nontraditional to define students may have its limitations, the research that addresses the diverse needs of the community college student population is critical to promoting student success.

Table 1
Comparison of Risk Factors for Students Enrolled in
Two- Year and Four- Year Public Colleges, 1995-1996

                                     Public two-   Public four-
        Risk Factors                    year          year

Delayed entry (1 year or more)          47.6          16.8
Attending part-time                     46.3          11.4
Financially independent of parents      34.6           8.6
Working full-time                       34.5          11.3
Having dependents other than spouse     21.2           4.5
Single parent                           10.5           2.5
No high school diploma                  11.2           2.6

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 1996

References

American Association of Community Colleges. (2000). National profile of community colleges: Trends & statistics. Washington, D.C.: Phillippe, K.A. & Patton. Community College Press.

Apling, R.N. (1991). "Nontraditional" students attending postsecondary institutions. CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress.

Butler, J.D. (1998). The student teaching experience: A comparative study. Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED417181).

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ely, E.E. (1997, April). The non-traditional student. Paper presented at the American Association of Community Colleges annual conference, Anaheim, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED411906).

Haggan, P.S. (2000, July). Transition counseling in the community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, (6), 427-442. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ610190).

Hazzard, T. (1993). Programs, issues, and concerns regarding nontraditional students with a focus on a model orientation session. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Continuing Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED357813).

Hamilton, J. (1998). First-time students entering a two-year public college with a GED, Fall 1991 to Fall 1996. GA: Gainesville College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED415938).

Hughes, R. (1983). The non-traditional student in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. NASPA Journal, 20, (3), 51-64.

Koehler, G., & Burke, A. (1996). Transforming the treadmill into a staircase: Preparing nontraditional first-generation college attenders for success. Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414959).

Metzner, B.S., & Bean, J.P. (1987). The estimation of a conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 27, (1), 15-38.

National Center for Education Statistics (1996, November). Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends in enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and persistence and attainment among 1989-90 beginning postsecondary students. Washington, D. C.: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics (1998, November). Descriptive summary of 1995-96 beginning postsecondary students. Washington, D.C.: Kojaku, L.K., Nunez, A.M., & Malizio, A.G.

Nora, A., Kraemer, B., & Itzen, R. (1997, November). A causal model: ASHE annual meeting paper. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Albuquerque, NM. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED415824).

O'Keefe, V. (1993, November) How to help adult and nontraditional students find success through the communication course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Miami Beach, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED368006).

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21st century: Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21, (2), 151-165.

Poppenga, J.G. (1996, November). An investigation into the nature of trait-like and situational communication apprehension of nontraditional undergraduate students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED404678).

Raisman, N. (2002). Embrace the oxymoron: Customer service in higher education. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

Rendon, L. (1995, March). Facilitating retention and transfer for first generation students in community colleges. Paper presented at the New Mexico Institute, Rural Community College Initiative, Espanola, NM. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED383369).

Rendon, L. (2000). Fulfilling the promise of access and opportunity: Collaborative community colleges for the 21st century. New expeditions: Charting the second century of community colleges, (Issues Paper No. 3). Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440670).

Rendon, L. (1994, August). Beyond involvement: Creating validating academic and social communities in the community college. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374728).

Sundberg, L. (1997). Marketing analysis for the nontraditional student at Carl Sandburg Community College. Galesburg, IL: Carl Sandburg Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413032).

Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA Journal, 19, (2), 5-9.

Tyler, D.A. (1993, May). At risk non-traditional community college students. Paper presented at the annual international conference of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development on Teaching Excellence and Conference of Administrators, Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED361055).

Karen Kim is a doctoral student in the graduate school of Education and Information Studies at UCLA in Los Angeles, California. [e-mail]